I think you could have expanded more on the details about the reason why the Plebians chose to abandon the republic. For one thing, the Roman voting system was not based on "One Man , One vote" , but votes were based on the amount of property owned, it was not a Republic, but an oligarchy, the founders of the American republic, that did not permit women to vote look very , very progressive . In the wars waged by the roman politicians that were elected as a result of this voting system, the land holding Plebians were at a loss, as they could not tend to their fields while on campaigns, and came back to an impoverished household, and could not find work at the Patricians land as the said Patricians employed slaves that were captured during the war. Would also like a series dedicated to the fall of the Western Empire, and how the lack of revenue from the decadent east, after the split, led to smaller Armies and you can also explain if the tactics of the Germanic tribes were more sophisticated than the Gauls, the Suebi and the Greeks.
Hey guys, I'm the historian and scriptwriter for this episode. If you have any questions or feedback, please leave them below and I'll do my best to get around to them!
@@juancastillo2900 There might be, the channel always likes hearing peoples suggestions, if you've got a topic you want covered, your best bet is to join the patreon, even the bottom tier, get access to the discord and suggest it there!
In a word: incentives. During the early Republic, Romans had personal incentives to keep the Republic functional. An individual Roman’s power and wealth were directly tied to his or her contribution to the Republic, and working against its interests made one a social pariah. In the late Republic, many found they could amass power and wealth by working against the Republic’s interests, and if they amassed enough wealth and power, social stigmas became irrelevant. It’s no surprise that many chose to do so.
In other words, the social class for which this traditional morality worked, that is the soldier-farmers of the early Republic (what we would today describe as middle class), declined over time. A general conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the accumulation of wealth in the hands of few, accompanied by the impoverishment of the majority is never good for democracy.
The fall of Rome is obviously caused by the screenwriters trying to cram a large portion of history into a single season, which led to the glossing over of important details like - oh wait, you're talking about the City.
it’s really cause HBO didn’t wanna pay for all the sets and costumes because they didn’t think enough people were watching to make a profit. It lowkey laid a framework for shows like Game of Thrones and Chernobyl
I would argue that the lack of a major enemy like Carthage did lead to a degree of complacency, especially among the wealthy. But it also had the unexpected effect of injecting too much slave labor into the Roman world which created a socio-economic problem with the common people. This is turn led to the Populares appealing to the disenfranchised lower classes for social reform. The elites in the Optimate faction were more focussed on the good old days and didn’t have a grasp of the new changes and realities.
Agreed. The Populares were better able to accept and indeed exploit the changing circumstances of the late Republic. The Optimates were indeed too wedded to the past. A past that was by that point, a mythical period that none living had actually experienced.
Good, but not enough. Add the multitudes of displaced farmers after Hannibal terrorized Italy for 16 years flocking to the cities to be on the dole and a splendid source of political corruption. Also, this weakened the legions which had been made up of freedmen and farmers. Scipio's victory also ended the Nuovo Homines and re-established the old families as the power and nobility of Rome... so much for a meritocracy. The emptied country-side was bought up by these rich families and converted to profitable vineyards and olive groves based on slave labor -- another blow to class structure and the economy.
I think it's the other way around. The central issue that broke Rome was the distribution of land. In the "good old days", the average Roman was a farmer and part time soldier in the off season of farming. Romans had their piece of land. Which would give them the means to equip themselves as soldiers up to standard. They would campaign seasonally, and then return to their land. And "all was well" in these good old days. During the wars with Carthage, campaigns lasted longer than single seasons. By the time soldiers could finally return to their farms, they found it in ruins and they found themselves bankrupt. So they sold their farms en mass. These wars also resulted in great surpluses of slaves. The Optimates were the ones who were buying out farms, creating massive farms, farmed using slave labor. And they were bending the law to do it (Since laws already existed to prevent this). This caused massive numbers of Romans to become destitute and move to the city of Rome. This movement changed the demographics in Rome, filling Rome with a population that wanted land reform. Which was the source of what fueled the power of Populares. The Populares were the ones "trying" to return things to the good old days. The Optimates were the ones embracing the current trend of individuals amassing greater and greater wealth and power. Rome is almost like the movie The Matrix. At some point, some individuals figured out how to bend laws. Then, "The One" came along with the skill to bend laws like no one before (Ceasar 😅). And then the system crashed.
@DB Cooper Both sides indeed claimed to embody "True Roman values of the golden age". In fact neither of them did. The Populares and the Optimates were a product of late Republic politics. My point is that the Populares were better able to use the circumstances of the times to their advantage in the end.
Hasnt anyone sensed a strong parallel to current times? Optimates = Conservatives (the ancient Right), Populares = Progressists (the ancient Left). If things are left untouched by exogenous forces (as the Sumero-Assyrian-Persian civilisation was distroyed by Alexander before it reached its natural sclerosis stage), a civilisational cycle should run the same trends. Thus, unfortunately (and fortunately for forecasting) history has the tendency to repeat itself as any other element in Nature or of socio-economic nature, just as simply the price of any stock - an element we all see each day - has 4 cyclical stages: accumulation, price expansion, plateau, bust. So...if the Western Civilisation is not stopped by an external force, it should also lead to the errosion of middle class, rise of the Left, distruction of Democracy with emperors to be brought forth by the "reformers" of the Left; the new Caesars have yet to be brought onto the political forefront from within the modern Populares. What do you think of this parallel stemmed from civilisational cycles analysis?
@@issmailchoukari7817 It's not about giving a definite answer, but rather to give arguments of modern historians by shedding more light on the factors not related to morals.
I think it answers it pretty well. It's basically that the Romans were so focused on their ideals that they were unable to address real problems in a reasonable way. Just like Caeser was seen as a problem but their ideals couldn't explain why. Basically, more and more people found loopholes and eventually it all went too corrupt to function.
@@GarkKahn to be fair the “empire” came out of the fall so that kinda makes sense. In many ways people likely search for Roman Empire, so it’s good for search results Not to mention in many ways Rome had an empire before it had an emperor
I don't see the Republic as having "fallen", but rather it transitioned slowly of the course of 150 years from a Republic to a Principate. I don't follow the moralistic view of the "fall" given how every older generation views the younger as being corrupted in some way. It's a song as old as time.
Cato the Elder was a great enemy of Scipio Africanus, who he saw as a danger for the Republic. Years later, Cicero would use the example of Scipio Africanus as an embodiment of the perfect Roman citizen. The question of a moral decline is definitely a tricky one, even the ancient Romans were confused.
It is logical that the greatest threats to the Republic would also provide for the greatest achievements, I see no contradiction here. Cicero was writing with the advantage of history, Cato with the anxieties of his time. That Scipio Africanus was both a danger to the Republic, and a great embodiment of civic virtue is not illogical or unreasonable.
@@keymaker2112 Of course it's logical, but the reasoning isn't. And to go back on what was said in the video, if he was truly an embodiment of civic virtues, how could he be a threat to the Republic, and vice versa. What I personally think is that despite promoting the perfection of their Republic, the Roman (and Greek) idea of the perfect citizen is one that cannot exist in a democratic or oligarchic form of government. The paradoxical result of a single individual embodying all of the values of the Republic is the rise of a monarchy. You can either promote (or at least let be) a single exceptional individual, but then it is a Republic or Democracy no more, or you can defend your Republic/Democracy against such ambitious citizens, but by doing so you renounce the very values you pretend to protect.
@@praiza1481 The claim is both logical and reasonable. Consider Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the man who twice had the Kingship of Rome in his hands, and twice resigned his legal title of dictator, when he was at the height of his popularity and success. He was, without question, a great danger to the Republic, for he alone held the power, the legal sanction, and the popularity to name himself King, and not just once, but TWICE. Yet, he stepped down, perfecting his virtuous acts and cementing his legacy. There is no contradiction between the danger a man poses, and the extent to which he embodies civic virtue.
@@keymaker2112 This is not about the reality of the situation. We're talking ideals here, try to look at this from a philosophical point of view, like the ancients did. If a man is citizenship incarnate, how could he be a threat to his city? Either there's something wrong with the people claiming him to be a danger, or the values are flawed in their very core.
Histories provide more insight into the time of their writing than the time they purport to analyze. Both the Roman view of their history from a 'Roman' perspective, and the modern view of roman history from a contemporary perspective are accurate to their respective authors.
@@superm530 how they view? Russians: "because Ottomans take Constantinople" Indians: "because they have too much karma" Islam: "because Allah want us to conquer them" Chinese: "because they have no mandate of heaven" Jk.
Kings and Generals, please do a video on Cincinnatus, the Roman who took up the role of absolute authority as dictator, however, after the crisis had passed, he relinquished all his powers and returned to his farm, and became a legend throughout history as an honorable, humble, and civic man who did not hold onto his near infinite power longer than he needed to.
I hate the phrase "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" because while people today may use it to mean becoming successful by your own effort without any help, it actually means an impossible task.
@@MattieK09 He's not. He's pointing out people are using an old phrase in a completely wrong way and have no meaning of what the phrase means. Just goes to show people who say such things are morons. Plus no one can get anywhere by their own effort. Everyone relies on someone else for something. No man is an island.
So, the question is: did the stoic roman moral code lead to autocracy, starting with Julius Caesar and Augustus? The Marian reform was the most significant factor, I think. It allowed non-land owners to enlist in the army. This created two sides "the imperator and the poor" versus "the senator and the rich." Before, it was an hierarchy 1 dictator, 2 senators, 3 the rich, and 4 the poor. the classes generally only had contact with the classes directly above or below them. But the Marian reform allowed the most powerful (1 dictator) to team up with the lowest class (4 the poor). This shifted the balance of power away from the middle (3 & 4) and into the hands of 1. So, how does this relate to the stoic moral code? not really anything. the stoic moral code could be used in either direction of the argument. It could be used to criticize the tyrant autocrat by the senators, and it could also be used to criticize the senators and the rich for their corrupt ways. it doesn't matter. it was a political shift, not an ideological one. The ethical narrative was just a misrepresented complaint, that was actually about power shift.
This is not very precise what you write. Dictator was never (up to Caius Iulius Caesar) a permanent office in Rome.... Marian Reform was in my opinion a very significant factor indeed, because it separated the Army from the Citizenry. The Army became then a more or less mindless tool in the hand of an able general such as Sulla or Caesar.
@@mikolajtrzeciecki7979 yes, of course the position of consul, dictator, or imperator was never a permanent position during the republic. they were appointed and it had office terms. but my point still remains that, with the marian reform, that people that were able to enlist in the army weren't necessarily aligned with the senate, thus their loyalty was up for grabs. this was exploited by the generals who benefited from this direct loyalty of the soldiers (who came from a non-land owning background). this then, enabled generals like Julius Caesar to use the leverage to break and extend office terms.
This video in my oponion, has been the best one that "kings and generals" has produced so far. Keep up the good work. You are offering a great serviece to the global awareness and to the history itself❤
That's because norms have been established in a society. When social norms (e.g. traffic rules) are challenged, and there are no laws regarding things, there would be chaos in society and I don't think "wise peoples' " behavior would be unaffected by that.
I could see it as the Republic being constructed towards an imperial fashion. You had some lifelong positions, the senate held a lot of power, and there was the dictator role that was only held off by the tradition of giving up power. Combined with the love of strong, brave men leading, I feel Rome was already on borrowed time even before Carthage was defeated
@@toxicstorm2226 force alone isn't enough...special circumstances are the main ingredient. If Julius Ceasar were born 200 years earlier, he wouldn't have been able to play the legal system like a fiddle.
@@tylerdurden3722 good point. It’s so interesting to see the Republics downfall throughout history. And thanks to you two, I have even refined my knowledge. Thank you
@@toxicstorm2226 You were still 100% right though. Just it applied more from Augustus onward. For about 250 years after Ceasar died, Rome was still technically a republic...on paper at least. Today we call it the Principate. The Principate was headed by the Princeps (which means "First among Equals") During that period, Vespasian chose the military title Imperator. (being proclaimed Imperator by soldiers usually indicated fanatical loyalty from the army... Vespasian wanted to remind everyone of this fact). That's where the title "Emperor" comes from. The Principate was followed by the Dominate. This was when Rome truly became a Monarchy. But as you pointed out, lifelong positions was the problem. Except it was a problem during the Principate. And Julius Ceasar set a precedent that gave birth to the Principate. Augustus still had to "earn" political positions within the framework of the laws of the Republic. Except, he held several simultaneously, for life. He spent his whole life "earning" such positions...granted to him by the Senate. Tiberius managed to accumulate such positions faster than Augustus, and more of them. Caligula aquired everything in a single day. Technically, they were still adhering to the laws of the republic, except they were openly manipulating the system to make the laws work for them. 250 years later, everyone simply decided to stop playing pretend that "Rome is not a monarchy".
This was very serious video. This is historical psychology. Psychology, Ethics, Philosophy are very heavy subjects and if you know teachers who are into this you know how different they are from other people, I mean they are above them. In the past my teacher in psychology was giving the hole class very poor score at writing exams (they were at the end of the month) and strangely high scores at speaking exams. After a time i realize he was pushing us, unconsciously, to participate into - speaking discussions with him, direct communication, practical study and not to be afraid of taking part in something that will highlight us in front of others, not to be afraid to try answering the questions no mother the result (and even when we manage poorly he were giving us strangely high score). Psychology is something that always can help you and in the mention case it helped him to force as to participate in verbal exam before the writing exams comes. In the beginning a lot of kids did not wanted to be tested in front of the class verbally but in the end most of as did not wanted to hide and wait the writing exam.
It's probably an oversimplification but to me this is all nostalgia. Romans like Cato or Cicero in regards to their stance on a more virtuous past, are no different to me than those elders in Ex-Soviet states talking about how everything was better back then and all that.
Yeah, pretty much everyone in history writes about how much better things used to be. People say the same stuff now even when you can point to these better times being objectively worse. Linking it to morals is common too, they are vague and subjective and basically let you blame whoever you don't like.
I'd argue otherwise. Nostalgia is certainly something we have to keep in mind, but I do believe there are many times in which the past may have been superior to the present in various ways such as morals, purchasing power of the average person, architecture, etc. It's undoubtebly true for example that times were better in Anatolia before 1200 B.C when the bronze age collapse began than they were 150 years later in 1050 B.C Same could be said about Britain. I think just about everybody could agree that you'd prefer to live in Roman Britain in 300 A.D rather than the sub-Roman Britain of 500 A.D This doesn't mean that those earlier times were void of faults or that nostalgia didn't make the earlier times seem even brighter, but I think to ignore what clearly appeared to be better eras in the past is just silly. That's just me though
@@HerculesMays Yes, that is the long term effect of technology and resource. But generally speaking, if the technology and resource stays good, then the nostalgia explanation is more convincing.
We need to learn Latin, and Greek, and the classics in school again. It really would help bring us back to a unifying ideology that isn't religious, political, or otherwise divisive.
@@Mrkabrat (The guards are totally losing it now) " Thilenth! I've had enough of this wowdy webel behaviour. Thtop it! You call yourselves Pawaetonian guards? Thilence!" (Ah, good times.)
Thank you for a thoughtful video, less focused on single events but on the arc of the history of the republic. I agree with your skepticism about the ancient conservatives like Cato and Cicero and agree with the modern historians who see structural problems as deciding factors for the decline of the republic. Especially, I remember one video that describes Caesar crossing the Rubicon and conquering Italy with ONLY ONE LEGION, because of the widespread support he received from the Italian countryside: a republic cannot survive if not supported by at least a large minority among its people.
The ancient historians of Rome were not historians in our understanding of the word, they were rather moralists, the "histories" they told were designed to convey the virtues described in this video. Modern historians of today probably know more about the socio-economic-political-religious-intellectual history of Rome (however incomplete) than the Romans themselves have had.
There is some truth in what you say but in no way do modern historians understand roman society better than the actual Romans. We have the hindsight of 2000 years of socio-economic experiments and improved access to information(we see some of the truths that they could not see back then). We have gained a lot but also lost a lot.
Agree, except i doubt we know more than they did, rome kept very good records and had a thriving literary tradition by the standards of the era, we only have a minute fraction of the literature they produced and had access too to base our view off, even the works we do have are generally somewhat fragmentary.
@@yuckfoutube3 Tons of cultures have similar virtues. Japanese Bushido, Knights Chivalry, Chinese Confucianism, etc. Honestly it does not change people still being awful when they choose not to follow the virtues.
It's not like Caesar or Augustus decided one day "from now on we live in an empire and the republic is no more". Res publica is not a form of government and it didn't cease to exist when the political system changed. Also, Augustus was more obsessed with the old ways than some Optimates and he introduced laws enforcing conservative moral values.
Another great one Kings and Generals, one of my favs! I do like how you kinda left it up to us to make the decision on why it fell. I'm still a big believer that even with the greatest road system, communication didn't work with how vast the empire was and so failure.
I would inquire of the script writer: "Why not both?" It's obvious that Roman Morals were in decline, it's just that the overwhelming majority of modern historians have no meaningful understanding of moral theory, or metaphysics, and fall back onto the rote materialism they are familiar and comfortable with leading to material explanations, ignorant of the relationship between the two. The decision between Moral Decline and Socioeconomic Decline is a false dichotomy. Rome's decline was both moral and socioeconomic, and they contributed to one another in a feedback loop.
@Aaron Hawley Morals, insofar as they relate to how the individuals and families WITHIN a group relate to each other, are massively important. Without some sort of cooperative normalization, a group is doomed. The cooperative norms are a function of ethical prescriptions, ethical prescriptions are the application of a moral system. Without internal cohesion and cooperation, a groups effectiveness in geopolitical negotiations and conflicts is crippled. Ipso facto, Morals, as they relate to ethical norms within a group, are an important factor in Geopolitics.
Yeah, that's my thought as well. The simple version being that as Roman morals decayed, seizing power as an extremely influential politician which may as well have been an Emperor in their influence became a lot more likely. Which when combined with the socioeconomic decay meant that rather than relying on the Republic's socioeconomics to heal the moral decay, or the morals to be able to take the actions to heal the socioeconomic decay... Well, you ended up with a constant cycle where one person to fix the mess from the previous fellow eats away at the other half of the equation, which then eats away at the first half so it becomes for likely to trigger another cycle. Right up until you hit terminal decay and whatever the current set up isn't going to recover. But rather replaced.
@Aaron Hawley I don't see how the existence of Civil Wars and Factionalism contradicts my claim. The Moral Ideal of Rome remained relatively fixed, even if the ethical application of that ideal was in a state of flux.
Moral theory is wholly irrelevant here, and metaphysics is literally fairy tales with an intellectual patina. History deal with things that happen in reality not in some philosopher's mind fantasy. Real phenomena have material causes. Everything else is made up bullshit and pure idealistic thinking.
@@transsylvanian9100 Your materialism has been noted, but riddle me this batman: How can the moral theory, and the resulting ethical norms, of a people be irrelevant in understanding their history? How can the changes in that morality, and the resulting tensions that arise from those changes, be irrelevant to the function and health of a society? It makes no sense, and is historically ignorant to boot.
I think the example of Caesar is the best example in showing the flaw in blaming the degradation of the Mos Maiorum in the fall of the Roman Republic. This is probably the best examination of that aspect of Roman history. BTW, I love all your videos that examine and illustrate the tactics and battles in history. I hope some day you do a video on Sun Tzu and the "Art of War". I wonder how he would do against Genghis Khan, Attila and Julius Caesar.
First of all, awesome video . Ks&Js approach to new and unique topics is not only educating for us viewers but also entertaining in its own rite. Second, in my opinion the reason for fall of republic was Rome's militaristic structure.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Also, its nice to see how the common proletarii and plebes have their share of the historical narrative for once instead of gentlemen historians for one, dont you think?
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Its not meant to be taken word for word you know, its preferrable to read it and understand that even the common plebeian at the time had an opinion and a socioeconomic interest and should not be condescendingly labeled "the mob"
@@xunqianbaidu6917 why are you so damn antagonistic? I know where to find my references for archival evidence and historical data. I know that Dr. Michael Parenti isn't it, he's a doctor in Political Science. Hence the title of the book. Chill out man, noone's busting your balls on how (or how it is not) historically accurate it is. Who hurt you?
@@xunqianbaidu6917 I know a couple of history major cum laudes who happen to like the book and even recommended it to me. Because they don't take it as a direct historical reference which is not what the book is for. Only a dum-dum would think that. Thats also how I found out about it.
Another amazing video by Kings and Generals! Really loving this channel. Ya’ll should do some Mass Effect lore videos as I’m sure it would fit right in with it’s detailed and far-reaching nature in celebration of the Legendary Anniversary edition of the Mass Effect games that is being released in a few months!
You are focused on military history, but I really, really enjoy it the most, when you do society/economy/politics stuff! Produce more of this great content
Roman Reactionaries: Young people have lost their morals, they watch too many Greek plays! Modern Reactionaries: Young people have lost their morals, they eat too much avocado toast. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
@@transsylvanian9100 I'd have to disagree. That's a highly simplistic way to look at conservatives and change. Society doubtlessly can and has "changed" in negative ways in the past, and having a strong conservative element in society can help to "hold the reigns" and sober people up as to where they're headed. Change is always happening, but the direction of that change is not universally good. One can merely look to the decline of art, education and the increasingly autocratic nature of the late Roman Empire for an example of a negative change.
Thank you for the video! Loved it! Great work. Would you make a number of videos specifically addressing the moral decline, and, separately, the socioeconomic decline of the Roman Republic!? Thank you.
Not their fault you can't read. History is clearly defined as to when the Republic and Empire existed, and they were both separate entities. For all intents and purposes, they were completely different nations created in transition by Julius and Augustus Caesar.
This one is such a nice and enlightening video. It covers both the ideas and thoughts of ancient figures who lived in the period and the ideas of modern historians, adding a whole new layer to the topic. Liked and commented. Good work
I agree with modern historiography. It is the circumstances and conditions in which societies find themselves that give rise to their values and "great men". Not the other way around.
@@cristitanase6130 Um...ok. I was only pointing out the juxtaposition of the ancient "Great man" theory of historiography and the more modern and in my opinion better Zeitgeist theory.
@@youngimperialistmkii I think a synthesis of the two is more appropriate. Modern historians seem way too focused on collective socioeconomic problems, almost like they're Marxists or something. You cannot deny the fact that the actions of great men have often been the catalysts for some form of necessary change to take place. But because it is impossible to know what would have happened differently without these great men, it is impossible to prove that it was their actions that led to the change, and therefore easy to dismiss the theory altogether. Would Rome have become a mighty empire without the actions of Julius Caesar? Or would it have instead simply fallen apart? No one can say. Would the Holocaust still have taken place if Hitler had been killed in the First World War? Perhaps not. Or perhaps someone worse might have come along, who may have won. Would the Civil Rights movement in America still have succeeded without the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr? I'd like to think so, but maybe not as soon. But these men were obviously all products of their own times, and I don't think the Romans would have disagreed with that. Regardless, they seem to have had enormous impacts on history, for better or worse, no matter how you shake a stick at it.
@@cristitanase6130 I assume you are referring to Tiberius. If so, it's thought that he did not wish to become emperor, but that the machinations of his family brought him to power. Thing is, when he became emperor, he proved to be apathetic and paranoid. Allowing Sejanus to implement a reign of terror that destroyed any trust the noble or common people had in him. In the end he was a terrible failure of an emperor.
This is an incredibly video. I think the points about luxury and the greed of the upper echelons are the most convincing. It made the state wealthier, but it eroded the Roman culture that had made them so successful in the first place, it created divisions (and therefore civil war) and weakened the Republics institutions.
The added wealth certainly fueled corruption. But also the citizenship greatly expanded - because a person could buy Roman citizenship or acquire it in other ways such as serving in the army. This led to an ever increasing number of citizens who knew little or nothing about Rome, and the vision of what a 'Roman' Republic should look like became distorted. In the end, only an Empire could hold the dominions together.
Echoes of the past resound all around us even today. It's both fascinating and depressing to see our current socioeconomic climate mirroring the events of Rome at the time in the video. Will we ever see a truly golden age of humanity where we aspire toward ideals more than we do the acquisition of wealth and possessions? Or are we just another society doomed to collapse like Rome....
Just about to sign up to Machellan & I’m happy to let the adds play through, irritatingly pointless though they are, anything to support this brilliantly informative, amazing channel. This episode is marvellous.
The rise would be interesting, but the fall? It’d be a bit dull. It basically amounted to several independence movements after WW2 and Britain saying “yeah, sure, we can’t be bothered anymore”.
This topic is a very interesting one. As a moral theologist, I am keen on it. I see deep connections between Roman society and ours. Many ancient ideas live in our culture until nowadays. There are inner and outer factors in every decline, which have to be seen from a higher perspective. The common goal like a dangerous enemy pushes the powers together of course, while the time of peace offers us more space to be more egoistic. The story of Caesar is a very good example. A spiritual leader (pontifex maximus), who embodied all the virtues, inspired many but stood against the Republic in the end. I think Caesar didn’t want to destroy it but change it. He surely had seen the contradiction between the reality he was facing all his life with all the blood and glory and the virtual world of thinkers like Cicero. I see the separation and antagonism of life reality and virtuality, materiality and spirituality, practicality and idealism, as the main cause of the fall of every civilization including ours.
As always good work Kings and Generals, another good future video should talk about Chivalry and Futuwwa these two different moral codes as well as their similarities, and the background of how they developed.
Caesar expanded the empire immensely, and while he may have seized a lot of control (too much maybe), he seemed to still have Rome's growth and prosperity high on his mind. If there ever was going to be a "King of Rome", I think Caesar would've been one of the better ones. I'm pretty sure you guys have covered the fall of the Roman Empire, and iirc it was mainly outside factors coupled with extreme instability from within the empire, which led to it's decline and eventual demise. And of course plague and economical reasons which others have mentioned. I do think there's at least some merit to the notion of "moral decline" in the empire, as it grew ever bigger and lost virtually all threats to it's existence. It's kind of like when you play EU4 (or any other grand strategy game), and you create a huge empire. At some point, there isn't anyone to rival you, and a complete loss of 50.000 soldiers is nothing to you, as you can just replenish them with new troops. On the other hand, it would devastate just as many families, which in turn could create frustration and anger towards the state. Failures like this over time could lead to lack of trust in the state, and 'word of mouth' would spread in the undergrowth of society, at the lack of care in the upper classes. Over many years, this could lead to a decline in the adherence to the Mos Maiorum, and it would probably not be as obvious to the people at the top, as it would be between the commoners. This of course, is just my ramblings and theories, but you can see how much people have changed in the last 50 years. 'Boomers' vs 'Millennials' is a decent example of how much people change over time. While some people want back the good old days, some want progress and change. Couple this with some very mighty people with a lot of power and greed, and you can have a very bad/good time. Rome was the greatest empire to ever exist, but at long last, all good things must come to and end. And as a wise father once said to his son: "No King rules forever"
@@hamidious I would disagree. It seems as though the thought that “Caesar was a tyrant” comes from the oligarchs he was trying to depose. By making the senate open to all Roman citizens, from all provinces, Caesar had lost any friends he had in the senate. In my opinion, this was his attempt to create a meritocracy in the government and that was (partly) why he was assassinated. A man who leaves 75% of his incredible wealth to the citizens after his death does not seem a tyrant to me, but rather a reformer on a mission to save the republic.
Caesar saw the wealth, and positional inequalities across the government, recognizing that continual enrichment of the optimates, in contrast with the plight of the populares, was an aristocratic downward spiral. Caesar only took steps towards tyranny when his hand was forced, such as the crossing of the rubicon. Caesar did not necessarily wish to do this, only crossing after being threatened with imprisonment and execution. In addition, the Republic was only transformed into an imperial power by Caesars death. Caesar very well may have relinquished his dictatorship after he had reformed the republic, however we will never know because he was murdered. Caesar’s murder was indeed the nail in the coffin for the republic, in this way, kicking off the succession crisis that resulted in an empire being formed. *edit: dictator ship -> dictatorship
Cicero's mistake was that he thinks the Aristocracy is more virtuous by default even though it's kind there fault why the economic situation in Rome during Caesar's time got messed up
The answer to both questions is: Yes. And since we are now discussing the absolute moral decline of Rome through the centuries, we can take 2 examples and compare them. -The first one is the Itallic Peninsula during the times of the Punic Wars: which were composed by the scarce dominions directly dominated by the city of Rome(which by that time wasn't even one of the biggest cities of the Mediterranean) plus its inmense web of alliances still far from being consolidated. That Republic was, in one word, formidable. A martial juggernaut fixated on the Mos Maiorum with an endurance and adapting capability beyond belief. That landlocked State without any fleet worth mentioning fought a naval war vs the most powerful naval force of the world by that time and won. They built their fleet from scratch, suffered numerous setbacks that would have destroyed any other State's will to fight and still managed to come out stronger at the end. That Republic had its worst enemy plundering and destroying their armies right into the heart of their main land for a decade and still had the guts to send armies out to Hispania and Africa to win the big picture. We could perfectly say that they survived and prevailed by guts alone. -The other example is the Itallic Peninsula 5 centuries later, during the III Century: which was several times more populated and "prosperous". And also was... pathetic. A gigantic nest of corruption and depravity that had long forgotten what was to have an enemy at their doors and had become too comfortable in their own well-being. It was a fat pig prepared to be slaughtered by the first army that managed to get past Aquileia and Mediolanum and had to rely on armies recruited at the outher provinces, especially Illiria, the province that literally allowed the Roman Empire to keep existing for 2 more centuries thanks to the manpower and commanders it produced. It's not casuality that it was placed right behind the Danube, where most of the action ocurred. And the city of Rome itself isn't even worth mentioning. Even the Emperors tried to evade that inmense economic shithole dominated by corrupt praetorians and vestigial senators as much as possible. No wonder they ended up moving the capitals and custom centers far away from there.
Do you know if Rome completely stop recruiting soldiers from the italic Peninisula in the third century? If so, what did the common Roman do who used to earn a living from the army?
Mos Maiorum. I think this topic deserves a series of its own. Changes in values and virtue come hand in hand with the changes of empire and men. I hope this extend to all time period and cultures. :)
Adrian Goldsworthy emphasises that it was the military that brought down the western Roman Empire. The constant civil wars, assassinations of emperors, devaluation of the currency, high rates of taxation are stated to all be linked to the military attempting to get their own generals into power and disposing of him when they’re no longer useful. Of course the invasions from Germanic tribes and the huns and plagues didn’t help either. This dominance of the military in the late republic can also be somewhat applied then aswell in how the republic ended.
Surprised me... My favorite history channel, covered everything from Mayans, Vikings, Romans, Mongols, all the way to the Revolutionary War, WWII, and everything in between... Go Kings and Generals 👍🔥
It is worth noting that the personal and shared moral as a deciding factor part, was very much up and kicking in historical books written as late as a century ago.
With exemptions like climate, pandemic, invasion, and or lost geopolitical importance. Then its always the same song! Centralization of power, Systematic corruption, Class disparity, Civil/Political distress, Civil War/Coops/ Revolutions, Division and Disintegration. Nothing new in the life cycle of empires.
I love these videos. As good as the battle videos are the political, social and personal history of a place is far more interesting (to me) than military history.
I mean, its obvious morals wasn't the one sole contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Republic. Economic problems, social changes and such had a lot more to do than ancient historians assumed. But at the same time, let's not dismiss the theory of the moral decline completly. Look for example at the migration to the cities during the Industrial Revolution. While life and behaviour certainly wasn't perfect (full of despotic landowners, exagerated traditionalism, exclusion of the seen as different), in the rural communities of 19th century Europe there was a certain sense of togetherness. Neighbours knew all each other in those relatively small communities, and used to cooperate in order to facilitate their farm work, because many times it was too dificult to pull by oneself. But then, with the movement to the cities, this sense of community was gradually lost in favour of individualism. People living in an apartment rarely know who their neighbours are. And most of the time, city jobs are thought as either "going through the motions", or as a competition with each other. Because even nowadays, I think there are a lot of legit arguments to be made about the egocentrism of capitalist society on our day to day lifes.
Personally, I feel as though the main contributing factor to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was a lack of clear understanding of the history of Rome. They didn't have the necessary tools and information to truly look back and see what it was that was causing issues within the empire, thankfully they could remedy this by subscribing to Magellan tv and K&G is doing their part by providing a helpful link too. Hopefully they learn their lesson, thank you K&G!
For America it was the conquest and abuse of itself that did it, and that happened a couple hundred years ago. Now we see the braindead dregs clearly destroying and betraying every concept of statehood.
@@redmonkeyass26I assume you mean the virtuous American state only intends to spread "freedom" in Syria and then leave them alone, like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It absolutely nothing to do with oil or spreading their sphere of influence unlike the Russians.
After the brutal murder of the Gracchi brothers, there is honestly no future for the republic. As the hope of peaceful and orderly reform has died with them.
@@MattieK09 Absolutely agreed. They got what they had coming to them. They're rabble rousers. Poor Scipio Africanus should've just threw those grand kids in the Tiber.
In Italy we are deeply rooted to these kind of values, even if it doesn't seem by the stereotypes that characterize us. "Non ci metterei la mano sul fuoco" (i wouldn't put my hand on the fire) is a popular saying straight from the example you showed of Muzio Scevola
Would love to hear your opinions :-)
My opinion is that I’m sad because you brought up the fall of rome ;[
@@praeposter If you think about your youtube handle, you should probably blame yourself a little :-)
@@KingsandGenerals >:(((( i did what I had to do
I think you could have expanded more on the details about the reason why the Plebians chose to abandon the republic.
For one thing, the Roman voting system was not based on "One Man , One vote" , but votes were based on the amount of property owned, it was not a Republic, but an oligarchy, the founders of the American republic, that did not permit women to vote look very , very progressive .
In the wars waged by the roman politicians that were elected as a result of this voting system, the land holding Plebians were at a loss, as they could not tend to their fields while on campaigns, and came back to an impoverished household, and could not find work at the Patricians land as the said Patricians employed slaves that were captured during the war.
Would also like a series dedicated to the fall of the Western Empire, and how the lack of revenue from the decadent east, after the split, led to smaller Armies and you can also explain if the tactics of the Germanic tribes were more sophisticated than the Gauls, the Suebi and the Greeks.
Mix of both
Hey guys, I'm the historian and scriptwriter for this episode. If you have any questions or feedback, please leave them below and I'll do my best to get around to them!
Give such reason on fall of ottoman empire and mughal empire.
Why does RUclips say that your comment was posted nine hours ago, even tho the Video is only up for a few Minutes?
Amazing video!
@@juancastillo2900 There might be, the channel always likes hearing peoples suggestions, if you've got a topic you want covered, your best bet is to join the patreon, even the bottom tier, get access to the discord and suggest it there!
@@yeelord2755 I xulu is right, patrons get early access and scriptwriters even earlier access hahaha
In a word: incentives. During the early Republic, Romans had personal incentives to keep the Republic functional. An individual Roman’s power and wealth were directly tied to his or her contribution to the Republic, and working against its interests made one a social pariah. In the late Republic, many found they could amass power and wealth by working against the Republic’s interests, and if they amassed enough wealth and power, social stigmas became irrelevant. It’s no surprise that many chose to do so.
Wait...that sounds very familiar xd
God help US
@@doneuplikeakipper6512 thank goodness the army is loyal to the state and not the politicians
humans are and have always been opportunistic creatures ...
In other words, the social class for which this traditional morality worked, that is the soldier-farmers of the early Republic (what we would today describe as middle class), declined over time. A general conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the accumulation of wealth in the hands of few, accompanied by the impoverishment of the majority is never good for democracy.
The fall of Rome is obviously caused by the screenwriters trying to cram a large portion of history into a single season, which led to the glossing over of important details like - oh wait, you're talking about the City.
They only did this because there wouldn't be a 3rd season, sadly.
Its not thy cause but thy effect of not having ( what many historians called ) "Season III"
Both the TV series and the empire were ultimately undone by a grave lack of funds
Yeah well basically the same haha
it’s really cause HBO didn’t wanna pay for all the sets and costumes because they didn’t think enough people were watching to make a profit. It lowkey laid a framework for shows like Game of Thrones and Chernobyl
It was due to all that Corinthian anime, pure degeneracy.
Can't argue
Shhh, we don't talk about that filth here. Unless ofc we want our civilization to crumble
Corinthian anime? What?
@@jannguerrero oh wow! That's totally messed up
Hey man, those Greeks has some nice waifus, like Athena, lmao.
I would argue that the lack of a major enemy like Carthage did lead to a degree of complacency, especially among the wealthy. But it also had the unexpected effect of injecting too much slave labor into the Roman world which created a socio-economic problem with the common people. This is turn led to the Populares appealing to the disenfranchised lower classes for social reform. The elites in the Optimate faction were more focussed on the good old days and didn’t have a grasp of the new changes and realities.
Agreed. The Populares were better able to accept and indeed exploit the changing circumstances of the late Republic. The Optimates were indeed too wedded to the past. A past that was by that point, a mythical period that none living had actually experienced.
Good, but not enough. Add the multitudes of displaced farmers after Hannibal terrorized Italy for 16 years flocking to the cities to be on the dole and a splendid source of political corruption. Also, this weakened the legions which had been made up of freedmen and farmers. Scipio's victory also ended the Nuovo Homines and re-established the old families as the power and nobility of Rome... so much for a meritocracy. The emptied country-side was bought up by these rich families and converted to profitable vineyards and olive groves based on slave labor -- another blow to class structure and the economy.
I think it's the other way around.
The central issue that broke Rome was the distribution of land.
In the "good old days", the average Roman was a farmer and part time soldier in the off season of farming.
Romans had their piece of land. Which would give them the means to equip themselves as soldiers up to standard. They would campaign seasonally, and then return to their land. And "all was well" in these good old days.
During the wars with Carthage, campaigns lasted longer than single seasons. By the time soldiers could finally return to their farms, they found it in ruins and they found themselves bankrupt. So they sold their farms en mass.
These wars also resulted in great surpluses of slaves.
The Optimates were the ones who were buying out farms, creating massive farms, farmed using slave labor. And they were bending the law to do it (Since laws already existed to prevent this). This caused massive numbers of Romans to become destitute and move to the city of Rome. This movement changed the demographics in Rome, filling Rome with a population that wanted land reform. Which was the source of what fueled the power of Populares.
The Populares were the ones "trying" to return things to the good old days.
The Optimates were the ones embracing the current trend of individuals amassing greater and greater wealth and power.
Rome is almost like the movie The Matrix. At some point, some individuals figured out how to bend laws. Then, "The One" came along with the skill to bend laws like no one before (Ceasar 😅). And then the system crashed.
@DB Cooper Both sides indeed claimed to embody "True Roman values of the golden age". In fact neither of them did. The Populares and the Optimates were a product of late Republic politics. My point is that the Populares were better able to use the circumstances of the times to their advantage in the end.
Hasnt anyone sensed a strong parallel to current times? Optimates = Conservatives (the ancient Right), Populares = Progressists (the ancient Left). If things are left untouched by exogenous forces (as the Sumero-Assyrian-Persian civilisation was distroyed by Alexander before it reached its natural sclerosis stage), a civilisational cycle should run the same trends. Thus, unfortunately (and fortunately for forecasting) history has the tendency to repeat itself as any other element in Nature or of socio-economic nature, just as simply the price of any stock - an element we all see each day - has 4 cyclical stages: accumulation, price expansion, plateau, bust. So...if the Western Civilisation is not stopped by an external force, it should also lead to the errosion of middle class, rise of the Left, distruction of Democracy with emperors to be brought forth by the "reformers" of the Left; the new Caesars have yet to be brought onto the political forefront from within the modern Populares. What do you think of this parallel stemmed from civilisational cycles analysis?
We all know the reason Rome fell was because Pullo did not get back in formation
Yea. And vorenus should not have left Caesar’s side before he walked into the senate
"How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Republic" indeed....
@@diegomagellan yes sir, thats, thats the real cause... Ooohhh Vorenus, you're not only failed to guard Caesar, but also to guard republic
"GET BACK IN FORMATION YOU DRUNKEN FOOL"
lol
I feel like this needs a part two. The title was barely addressed, only in the last minute or so.
It was a brief answer because this topic especially is hard to give a definitive answer
@@issmailchoukari7817 It's not about giving a definite answer, but rather to give arguments of modern historians by shedding more light on the factors not related to morals.
I think it answers it pretty well. It's basically that the Romans were so focused on their ideals that they were unable to address real problems in a reasonable way. Just like Caeser was seen as a problem but their ideals couldn't explain why. Basically, more and more people found loopholes and eventually it all went too corrupt to function.
Wait a second, this is about the reasons for The Fall of the Roman Republic, not the later Fall of the Roman Empire.😲
@Black Wolf why not?
It has a hashtag about the empire but not one about the republic though...
@@GarkKahn to be fair the “empire” came out of the fall so that kinda makes sense. In many ways people likely search for Roman Empire, so it’s good for search results
Not to mention in many ways Rome had an empire before it had an emperor
I don't see the Republic as having "fallen", but rather it transitioned slowly of the course of 150 years from a Republic to a Principate. I don't follow the moralistic view of the "fall" given how every older generation views the younger as being corrupted in some way. It's a song as old as time.
Apologies for any confusion hopefully the new ttitle is a lot clearer!
I can honestly say that this is one of the most incredible and contemplative topics ever adressed by this channel. For that, i am grateful!
Cato the Elder was a great enemy of Scipio Africanus, who he saw as a danger for the Republic. Years later, Cicero would use the example of Scipio Africanus as an embodiment of the perfect Roman citizen.
The question of a moral decline is definitely a tricky one, even the ancient Romans were confused.
It is logical that the greatest threats to the Republic would also provide for the greatest achievements, I see no contradiction here. Cicero was writing with the advantage of history, Cato with the anxieties of his time.
That Scipio Africanus was both a danger to the Republic, and a great embodiment of civic virtue is not illogical or unreasonable.
@@keymaker2112 You can say the same about Sula, the dictator that steped back but started the fall.
@@keymaker2112 Of course it's logical, but the reasoning isn't. And to go back on what was said in the video, if he was truly an embodiment of civic virtues, how could he be a threat to the Republic, and vice versa.
What I personally think is that despite promoting the perfection of their Republic, the Roman (and Greek) idea of the perfect citizen is one that cannot exist in a democratic or oligarchic form of government. The paradoxical result of a single individual embodying all of the values of the Republic is the rise of a monarchy.
You can either promote (or at least let be) a single exceptional individual, but then it is a Republic or Democracy no more, or you can defend your Republic/Democracy against such ambitious citizens, but by doing so you renounce the very values you pretend to protect.
@@praiza1481
The claim is both logical and reasonable.
Consider Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the man who twice had the Kingship of Rome in his hands, and twice resigned his legal title of dictator, when he was at the height of his popularity and success. He was, without question, a great danger to the Republic, for he alone held the power, the legal sanction, and the popularity to name himself King, and not just once, but TWICE.
Yet, he stepped down, perfecting his virtuous acts and cementing his legacy.
There is no contradiction between the danger a man poses, and the extent to which he embodies civic virtue.
@@keymaker2112 This is not about the reality of the situation. We're talking ideals here, try to look at this from a philosophical point of view, like the ancients did.
If a man is citizenship incarnate, how could he be a threat to his city? Either there's something wrong with the people claiming him to be a danger, or the values are flawed in their very core.
Histories provide more insight into the time of their writing than the time they purport to analyze. Both the Roman view of their history from a 'Roman' perspective, and the modern view of roman history from a contemporary perspective are accurate to their respective authors.
@@superm530 how they view?
Russians: "because Ottomans take Constantinople"
Indians: "because they have too much karma"
Islam: "because Allah want us to conquer them"
Chinese: "because they have no mandate of heaven"
Jk.
We all know the real reason Rome fell was because they didn’t have a subscription to Magellan TV so they could’ve known how to prevent these issues.
I thought it was because they didn’t subscribe to belle delohine’s only fans
@@AxeBearWhoCares *delphine
No, that's because they don't subscribe to NordVPN, allowing their passwords to be intercepted by the Gauls.
@@baabaaer lol
Hahahaha.
I like how you left the ending as an open question. It's nice to see that you're engaging the minds of your viewers.
King and Generals are way above any history channel's
Actually a small handful of really solid history channels on RUclips.
@@арефнар most of these channels I do follow ofc
@@narxes 🤣🤣😉
@@narxes Uh what?....
@@арефнар This list cannot be complete without Historia Civilis.
Kings and Generals, please do a video on Cincinnatus, the Roman who took up the role of absolute authority as dictator, however, after the crisis had passed, he relinquished all his powers and returned to his farm, and became a legend throughout history as an honorable, humble, and civic man who did not hold onto his near infinite power longer than he needed to.
So the the fall of Carthage indirectly lead to the fall of Rome ?
By that I gladly announce that the Punic Wars (trilogy) is a draw!
Agreed
carthaginians: we will die, but you will follow us soon after.
Interesting...
Spoken like a true Carthaginian.
Cope
I have no words to express how much I adore and respect the work this channel does
I hate the phrase "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" because while people today may use it to mean becoming successful by your own effort without any help, it actually means an impossible task.
@@MattieK09 He's not. He's pointing out people are using an old phrase in a completely wrong way and have no meaning of what the phrase means. Just goes to show people who say such things are morons. Plus no one can get anywhere by their own effort. Everyone relies on someone else for something. No man is an island.
14:43 Indeed, the whole idea is nonsense. Americans need to help each other, no man is an island.
So, the question is: did the stoic roman moral code lead to autocracy, starting with Julius Caesar and Augustus?
The Marian reform was the most significant factor, I think. It allowed non-land owners to enlist in the army. This created two sides "the imperator and the poor" versus "the senator and the rich." Before, it was an hierarchy 1 dictator, 2 senators, 3 the rich, and 4 the poor. the classes generally only had contact with the classes directly above or below them. But the Marian reform allowed the most powerful (1 dictator) to team up with the lowest class (4 the poor). This shifted the balance of power away from the middle (3 & 4) and into the hands of 1.
So, how does this relate to the stoic moral code? not really anything. the stoic moral code could be used in either direction of the argument. It could be used to criticize the tyrant autocrat by the senators, and it could also be used to criticize the senators and the rich for their corrupt ways. it doesn't matter. it was a political shift, not an ideological one. The ethical narrative was just a misrepresented complaint, that was actually about power shift.
This is not very precise what you write. Dictator was never (up to Caius Iulius Caesar) a permanent office in Rome....
Marian Reform was in my opinion a very significant factor indeed, because it separated the Army from the Citizenry. The Army became then a more or less mindless tool in the hand of an able general such as Sulla or Caesar.
@@mikolajtrzeciecki7979 yes, of course the position of consul, dictator, or imperator was never a permanent position during the republic. they were appointed and it had office terms. but my point still remains that, with the marian reform, that people that were able to enlist in the army weren't necessarily aligned with the senate, thus their loyalty was up for grabs. this was exploited by the generals who benefited from this direct loyalty of the soldiers (who came from a non-land owning background). this then, enabled generals like Julius Caesar to use the leverage to break and extend office terms.
**Rolls eyes** obviously because James Bizonette stopped funding them...
What about Kelly moneymaker?
The only correct answer
@@wongjimmy3189 don't forget the mighty Danny Maloney
Ahh..... men of culture here
Skyship Hell obliterated the pomerium.
This video in my oponion, has been the best one that "kings and generals" has produced so far. Keep up the good work. You are offering a great serviece to the global awareness and to the history itself❤
"Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life"
- Aristophanes
Word.
That's because norms have been established in a society. When social norms (e.g. traffic rules) are challenged, and there are no laws regarding things, there would be chaos in society and I don't think "wise peoples' " behavior would be unaffected by that.
@@abdulmoiz74 Laws are not the same as norms.
@@weirdofromhalo I know. That's why I said that without laws, norms won't be able to sustain society.
The Fall of Rome is because of whatever narrative conveniently fits my worldview.
The Fall of Rome was caused by the Molemen.
Based
''The fall of Rome was caused by feminist ''
A bald RUclips philosopher.
The fall of Rome was caused by Gravity
Continues to aggressively misunderstand your point.
I could see it as the Republic being constructed towards an imperial fashion. You had some lifelong positions, the senate held a lot of power, and there was the dictator role that was only held off by the tradition of giving up power. Combined with the love of strong, brave men leading, I feel Rome was already on borrowed time even before Carthage was defeated
The office of Dictator was limited to 6 months. There was no tradition of giving up power, it was the law.
@@BoneistJ true, I missed that, and I respect you pointing it out. However we see in figures like Caesar that the law can be changed with enough force
@@toxicstorm2226 force alone isn't enough...special circumstances are the main ingredient.
If Julius Ceasar were born 200 years earlier, he wouldn't have been able to play the legal system like a fiddle.
@@tylerdurden3722 good point. It’s so interesting to see the Republics downfall throughout history. And thanks to you two, I have even refined my knowledge. Thank you
@@toxicstorm2226 You were still 100% right though. Just it applied more from Augustus onward.
For about 250 years after Ceasar died, Rome was still technically a republic...on paper at least. Today we call it the Principate. The Principate was headed by the Princeps (which means "First among Equals")
During that period, Vespasian chose the military title Imperator. (being proclaimed Imperator by soldiers usually indicated fanatical loyalty from the army... Vespasian wanted to remind everyone of this fact). That's where the title "Emperor" comes from.
The Principate was followed by the Dominate. This was when Rome truly became a Monarchy.
But as you pointed out, lifelong positions was the problem. Except it was a problem during the Principate. And Julius Ceasar set a precedent that gave birth to the Principate.
Augustus still had to "earn" political positions within the framework of the laws of the Republic. Except, he held several simultaneously, for life. He spent his whole life "earning" such positions...granted to him by the Senate.
Tiberius managed to accumulate such positions faster than Augustus, and more of them.
Caligula aquired everything in a single day.
Technically, they were still adhering to the laws of the republic, except they were openly manipulating the system to make the laws work for them.
250 years later, everyone simply decided to stop playing pretend that "Rome is not a monarchy".
This was very serious video. This is historical psychology. Psychology, Ethics, Philosophy are very heavy subjects and if you know teachers who are into this you know how different they are from other people, I mean they are above them. In the past my teacher in psychology was giving the hole class very poor score at writing exams (they were at the end of the month) and strangely high scores at speaking exams. After a time i realize he was pushing us, unconsciously, to participate into - speaking discussions with him, direct communication, practical study and not to be afraid of taking part in something that will highlight us in front of others, not to be afraid to try answering the questions no mother the result (and even when we manage poorly he were giving us strangely high score). Psychology is something that always can help you and in the mention case it helped him to force as to participate in verbal exam before the writing exams comes. In the beginning a lot of kids did not wanted to be tested in front of the class verbally but in the end most of as did not wanted to hide and wait the writing exam.
You guys are what the history channel used to aim to be, but better. Thank you for all of your hard work, amazing progress and always great topics!
That "Manlius Imperiosus" is the role model for discipline is fantastic.
It's probably an oversimplification but to me this is all nostalgia. Romans like Cato or Cicero in regards to their stance on a more virtuous past, are no different to me than those elders in Ex-Soviet states talking about how everything was better back then and all that.
Yeah, pretty much everyone in history writes about how much better things used to be. People say the same stuff now even when you can point to these better times being objectively worse. Linking it to morals is common too, they are vague and subjective and basically let you blame whoever you don't like.
That is mind mehanism...past is the best...basicly is always almost a same...
I'd argue otherwise. Nostalgia is certainly something we have to keep in mind, but I do believe there are many times in which the past may have been superior to the present in various ways such as morals, purchasing power of the average person, architecture, etc.
It's undoubtebly true for example that times were better in Anatolia before 1200 B.C when the bronze age collapse began than they were 150 years later in 1050 B.C
Same could be said about Britain. I think just about everybody could agree that you'd prefer to live in Roman Britain in 300 A.D rather than the sub-Roman Britain of 500 A.D
This doesn't mean that those earlier times were void of faults or that nostalgia didn't make the earlier times seem even brighter, but I think to ignore what clearly appeared to be better eras in the past is just silly.
That's just me though
@@HerculesMays Yes, that is the long term effect of technology and resource. But generally speaking, if the technology and resource stays good, then the nostalgia explanation is more convincing.
We need to learn Latin, and Greek, and the classics in school again. It really would help bring us back to a unifying ideology that isn't religious, political, or otherwise divisive.
Why did Rome fall? they ran out of cool names
Yeah, they kinda peaked after our good friend Biggus Dickus.
He had a wife, you know...
@@bernardosales1044 Called Incontinentia.
@@NorthForkFisherman Incontinentia Buttocks
@@Mrkabrat (The guards are totally losing it now)
" Thilenth! I've had enough of this wowdy webel behaviour. Thtop it!
You call yourselves Pawaetonian guards? Thilence!"
(Ah, good times.)
Thank you for a thoughtful video, less focused on single events but on the arc of the history of the republic. I agree with your skepticism about the ancient conservatives like Cato and Cicero and agree with the modern historians who see structural problems as deciding factors for the decline of the republic. Especially, I remember one video that describes Caesar crossing the Rubicon and conquering Italy with ONLY ONE LEGION, because of the widespread support he received from the Italian countryside: a republic cannot survive if not supported by at least a large minority among its people.
The ancient historians of Rome were not historians in our understanding of the word, they were rather moralists, the "histories" they told were designed to convey the virtues described in this video. Modern historians of today probably know more about the socio-economic-political-religious-intellectual history of Rome (however incomplete) than the Romans themselves have had.
There is some truth in what you say but in no way do modern historians understand roman society better than the actual Romans. We have the hindsight of 2000 years of socio-economic experiments and improved access to information(we see some of the truths that they could not see back then). We have gained a lot but also lost a lot.
Agree, except i doubt we know more than they did, rome kept very good records and had a thriving literary tradition by the standards of the era, we only have a minute fraction of the literature they produced and had access too to base our view off, even the works we do have are generally somewhat fragmentary.
This is my most favourite channel on RUclips.
By far the best history content.
Thanks Kings and Generals
Mos Maiorum seems like a damn good list of virtues
Indeed.
@@yuckfoutube3 Tons of cultures have similar virtues. Japanese Bushido, Knights Chivalry, Chinese Confucianism, etc. Honestly it does not change people still being awful when they choose not to follow the virtues.
I appreciate the art style of this video. Beautiful and supportive of the typically excellent narration.
It's not like Caesar or Augustus decided one day "from now on we live in an empire and the republic is no more". Res publica is not a form of government and it didn't cease to exist when the political system changed. Also, Augustus was more obsessed with the old ways than some Optimates and he introduced laws enforcing conservative moral values.
Another great one Kings and Generals, one of my favs! I do like how you kinda left it up to us to make the decision on why it fell. I'm still a big believer that even with the greatest road system, communication didn't work with how vast the empire was and so failure.
I would inquire of the script writer: "Why not both?"
It's obvious that Roman Morals were in decline, it's just that the overwhelming majority of modern historians have no meaningful understanding of moral theory, or metaphysics, and fall back onto the rote materialism they are familiar and comfortable with leading to material explanations, ignorant of the relationship between the two.
The decision between Moral Decline and Socioeconomic Decline is a false dichotomy.
Rome's decline was both moral and socioeconomic, and they contributed to one another in a feedback loop.
@Aaron Hawley Morals, insofar as they relate to how the individuals and families WITHIN a group relate to each other, are massively important. Without some sort of cooperative normalization, a group is doomed. The cooperative norms are a function of ethical prescriptions, ethical prescriptions are the application of a moral system. Without internal cohesion and cooperation, a groups effectiveness in geopolitical negotiations and conflicts is crippled.
Ipso facto, Morals, as they relate to ethical norms within a group, are an important factor in Geopolitics.
Yeah, that's my thought as well. The simple version being that as Roman morals decayed, seizing power as an extremely influential politician which may as well have been an Emperor in their influence became a lot more likely.
Which when combined with the socioeconomic decay meant that rather than relying on the Republic's socioeconomics to heal the moral decay, or the morals to be able to take the actions to heal the socioeconomic decay... Well, you ended up with a constant cycle where one person to fix the mess from the previous fellow eats away at the other half of the equation, which then eats away at the first half so it becomes for likely to trigger another cycle. Right up until you hit terminal decay and whatever the current set up isn't going to recover. But rather replaced.
@Aaron Hawley I don't see how the existence of Civil Wars and Factionalism contradicts my claim.
The Moral Ideal of Rome remained relatively fixed, even if the ethical application of that ideal was in a state of flux.
Moral theory is wholly irrelevant here, and metaphysics is literally fairy tales with an intellectual patina. History deal with things that happen in reality not in some philosopher's mind fantasy. Real phenomena have material causes. Everything else is made up bullshit and pure idealistic thinking.
@@transsylvanian9100 Your materialism has been noted, but riddle me this batman:
How can the moral theory, and the resulting ethical norms, of a people be irrelevant in understanding their history? How can the changes in that morality, and the resulting tensions that arise from those changes, be irrelevant to the function and health of a society? It makes no sense, and is historically ignorant to boot.
I think the example of Caesar is the best example in showing the flaw in blaming the degradation of the Mos Maiorum in the fall of the Roman Republic. This is probably the best examination of that aspect of Roman history.
BTW, I love all your videos that examine and illustrate the tactics and battles in history. I hope some day you do a video on Sun Tzu and the "Art of War". I wonder how he would do against Genghis Khan, Attila and Julius Caesar.
I feel this needs an expanded version
(Also another video on economics would be very based)
First of all, awesome video
. Ks&Js approach to new and unique topics is not only educating for us viewers but also entertaining in its own rite. Second, in my opinion the reason for fall of republic was Rome's militaristic structure.
I really love how Dr. Michael Parenti frames this through his book, People's History of Rome.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 everything is ideological, my dude, you just havent realized it yet
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Also, its nice to see how the common proletarii and plebes have their share of the historical narrative for once instead of gentlemen historians for one, dont you think?
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Its not meant to be taken word for word you know, its preferrable to read it and understand that even the common plebeian at the time had an opinion and a socioeconomic interest and should not be condescendingly labeled "the mob"
@@xunqianbaidu6917 why are you so damn antagonistic?
I know where to find my references for archival evidence and historical data. I know that Dr. Michael Parenti isn't it, he's a doctor in Political Science. Hence the title of the book.
Chill out man, noone's busting your balls on how (or how it is not) historically accurate it is.
Who hurt you?
@@xunqianbaidu6917 I know a couple of history major cum laudes who happen to like the book and even recommended it to me. Because they don't take it as a direct historical reference which is not what the book is for. Only a dum-dum would think that.
Thats also how I found out about it.
Another amazing video by Kings and Generals! Really loving this channel. Ya’ll should do some Mass Effect lore videos as I’m sure it would fit right in with it’s detailed and far-reaching nature in celebration of the Legendary Anniversary edition of the Mass Effect games that is being released in a few months!
Loser
All that begins, must end. The reign of the shogun *IS OVER!* wait...
You are focused on military history, but I really, really enjoy it the most, when you do society/economy/politics stuff! Produce more of this great content
Roman Reactionaries: Young people have lost their morals, they watch too many Greek plays!
Modern Reactionaries: Young people have lost their morals, they eat too much avocado toast.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Conservatives, true to their name, never change - just as braindead today as conservatives 2000 years ago.
@@transsylvanian9100 I'd have to disagree. That's a highly simplistic way to look at conservatives and change.
Society doubtlessly can and has "changed" in negative ways in the past, and having a strong conservative element in society can help to "hold the reigns" and sober people up as to where they're headed.
Change is always happening, but the direction of that change is not universally good. One can merely look to the decline of art, education and the increasingly autocratic nature of the late Roman Empire for an example of a negative change.
@@transsylvanian9100 Brainlet hot take. NuMale's never change.
Hahahaha. Roman boomers be like.
@@transsylvanian9100 Actually, Cristi has a valid point.
Thank you for the video! Loved it! Great work. Would you make a number of videos specifically addressing the moral decline, and, separately, the socioeconomic decline of the Roman Republic!? Thank you.
I would change the title to something like "The End of the Roman Republic". I thought it is about the Fall of the Western Roman Empire
The title does say end of the Roman Republic tho.
Not their fault you can't read. History is clearly defined as to when the Republic and Empire existed, and they were both separate entities. For all intents and purposes, they were completely different nations created in transition by Julius and Augustus Caesar.
@@gomahklawm4446 I finally realized that afterwards lol, my bad.
This one is such a nice and enlightening video. It covers both the ideas and thoughts of ancient figures who lived in the period and the ideas of modern historians, adding a whole new layer to the topic. Liked and commented. Good work
I agree with modern historiography. It is the circumstances and conditions in which societies find themselves that give rise to their values and "great men". Not the other way around.
@@cristitanase6130 Um...ok. I was only pointing out the juxtaposition of the ancient "Great man" theory of historiography and the more modern and in my opinion better Zeitgeist theory.
@@youngimperialistmkii I think a synthesis of the two is more appropriate. Modern historians seem way too focused on collective socioeconomic problems, almost like they're Marxists or something. You cannot deny the fact that the actions of great men have often been the catalysts for some form of necessary change to take place. But because it is impossible to know what would have happened differently without these great men, it is impossible to prove that it was their actions that led to the change, and therefore easy to dismiss the theory altogether.
Would Rome have become a mighty empire without the actions of Julius Caesar? Or would it have instead simply fallen apart? No one can say.
Would the Holocaust still have taken place if Hitler had been killed in the First World War? Perhaps not. Or perhaps someone worse might have come along, who may have won.
Would the Civil Rights movement in America still have succeeded without the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr? I'd like to think so, but maybe not as soon.
But these men were obviously all products of their own times, and I don't think the Romans would have disagreed with that. Regardless, they seem to have had enormous impacts on history, for better or worse, no matter how you shake a stick at it.
@@cristitanase6130 I assume you are referring to Tiberius. If so, it's thought that he did not wish to become emperor, but that the machinations of his family brought him to power. Thing is, when he became emperor, he proved to be apathetic and paranoid. Allowing Sejanus to implement a reign of terror that destroyed any trust the noble or common people had in him. In the end he was a terrible failure of an emperor.
Was waiting for something like this from this channel
The Roman Republic was secure and cohesive enough to survive one Gracchus, but not two xP
And vice versa apparently :)
lol
This seems far more relatable now than at any other time in my life as I watch what is happening in the United States.
K&G: "Moral Decline or Socioeconomic Reasons?
"
Me: Yes
They fed onto each other.
@@arthurrebello919 Yes
@@arthurrebello919 Moral is a social factor as important as land propety.
Thank you K&G for covering this topic! The decline of the Late Roman Republic is unfortunately an often overlooked period of Roman history.
This is an incredibly video. I think the points about luxury and the greed of the upper echelons are the most convincing. It made the state wealthier, but it eroded the Roman culture that had made them so successful in the first place, it created divisions (and therefore civil war) and weakened the Republics institutions.
The added wealth certainly fueled corruption. But also the citizenship greatly expanded - because a person could buy Roman citizenship or acquire it in other ways such as serving in the army. This led to an ever increasing number of citizens who knew little or nothing about Rome, and the vision of what a 'Roman' Republic should look like became distorted. In the end, only an Empire could hold the dominions together.
Great video. It is History at its best: one that serves also as a reflection on your own time, no matter what epoch you live in.
Moral historians would say that moral decline itself lead to socio-economic-politico decline
Its chicken/egg debate all over again.
Always a great day when new Kings and Generals videos are released, great work! Really thoughtful video
Echoes of the past resound all around us even today. It's both fascinating and depressing to see our current socioeconomic climate mirroring the events of Rome at the time in the video. Will we ever see a truly golden age of humanity where we aspire toward ideals more than we do the acquisition of wealth and possessions? Or are we just another society doomed to collapse like Rome....
You guys are obviously the greatest historians in the world!
It's uncanny how the discussion in this episode almost explains very well, the current sociopolitical issues and state present in the US.
There are multiple books and RUclips series all about this very topic and how the US and Ancient Rome parallel
I am just constantly amazed by your quality content. Even though I am a biologist found history very interesting
Rome and it’s culture my favorite subjects of history along with the Ottomans and the mongols
These 3 + Alexander the Great's wars + Crusades+ Napoleonic Wars. These 6 are my favourites.
Just about to sign up to Machellan & I’m happy to let the adds play through, irritatingly pointless though they are, anything to support this brilliantly informative, amazing channel. This episode is marvellous.
In every age, in every place, the deeds of Man remain the same.
If only Kircheis were in Rome.
A man of culture.
@@johntitor1256 or at least Harry Seldon.
I think that both causes are valid explanations for the decline.
Great job, as usual.
Seems the "all was great, just and moral in the good old days" story is told even longer then I thought
An insight of Roman way of life! Priceless. Thank you Kings and Generals Team!
The rise and fall of the British empire?
It'd be amazing
The rise would be interesting, but the fall? It’d be a bit dull. It basically amounted to several independence movements after WW2 and Britain saying “yeah, sure, we can’t be bothered anymore”.
@@Cailus3542 What I meant was how those wars weakened their position and led to that 'we can't be bothered anymore' state.
This topic is a very interesting one. As a moral theologist, I am keen on it. I see deep connections between Roman society and ours. Many ancient ideas live in our culture until nowadays. There are inner and outer factors in every decline, which have to be seen from a higher perspective. The common goal like a dangerous enemy pushes the powers together of course, while the time of peace offers us more space to be more egoistic. The story of Caesar is a very good example. A spiritual leader (pontifex maximus), who embodied all the virtues, inspired many but stood against the Republic in the end. I think Caesar didn’t want to destroy it but change it. He surely had seen the contradiction between the reality he was facing all his life with all the blood and glory and the virtual world of thinkers like Cicero. I see the separation and antagonism of life reality and virtuality, materiality and spirituality, practicality and idealism, as the main cause of the fall of every civilization including ours.
Damn imagine how Manilus's son must've felt
He must’ve felt so manly.
As always good work Kings and Generals, another good future video should talk about Chivalry and Futuwwa these two different moral codes as well as their similarities, and the background of how they developed.
Caesar expanded the empire immensely, and while he may have seized a lot of control (too much maybe), he seemed to still have Rome's growth and prosperity high on his mind. If there ever was going to be a "King of Rome", I think Caesar would've been one of the better ones.
I'm pretty sure you guys have covered the fall of the Roman Empire, and iirc it was mainly outside factors coupled with extreme instability from within the empire, which led to it's decline and eventual demise. And of course plague and economical reasons which others have mentioned.
I do think there's at least some merit to the notion of "moral decline" in the empire, as it grew ever bigger and lost virtually all threats to it's existence. It's kind of like when you play EU4 (or any other grand strategy game), and you create a huge empire. At some point, there isn't anyone to rival you, and a complete loss of 50.000 soldiers is nothing to you, as you can just replenish them with new troops. On the other hand, it would devastate just as many families, which in turn could create frustration and anger towards the state. Failures like this over time could lead to lack of trust in the state, and 'word of mouth' would spread in the undergrowth of society, at the lack of care in the upper classes. Over many years, this could lead to a decline in the adherence to the Mos Maiorum, and it would probably not be as obvious to the people at the top, as it would be between the commoners.
This of course, is just my ramblings and theories, but you can see how much people have changed in the last 50 years. 'Boomers' vs 'Millennials' is a decent example of how much people change over time. While some people want back the good old days, some want progress and change. Couple this with some very mighty people with a lot of power and greed, and you can have a very bad/good time.
Rome was the greatest empire to ever exist, but at long last, all good things must come to and end.
And as a wise father once said to his son: "No King rules forever"
Bogg
@@hamidious I would disagree. It seems as though the thought that “Caesar was a tyrant” comes from the oligarchs he was trying to depose. By making the senate open to all Roman citizens, from all provinces, Caesar had lost any friends he had in the senate. In my opinion, this was his attempt to create a meritocracy in the government and that was (partly) why he was assassinated. A man who leaves 75% of his incredible wealth to the citizens after his death does not seem a tyrant to me, but rather a reformer on a mission to save the republic.
Caesar saw the wealth, and positional inequalities across the government, recognizing that continual enrichment of the optimates, in contrast with the plight of the populares, was an aristocratic downward spiral. Caesar only took steps towards tyranny when his hand was forced, such as the crossing of the rubicon. Caesar did not necessarily wish to do this, only crossing after being threatened with imprisonment and execution. In addition, the Republic was only transformed into an imperial power by Caesars death. Caesar very well may have relinquished his dictatorship after he had reformed the republic, however we will never know because he was murdered. Caesar’s murder was indeed the nail in the coffin for the republic, in this way, kicking off the succession crisis that resulted in an empire being formed.
*edit: dictator ship -> dictatorship
Just perfect ❤️ thank you for your great works
Cicero's mistake was that he thinks the Aristocracy is more virtuous by default even though it's kind there fault why the economic situation in Rome during Caesar's time got messed up
I like how you used the soundtrack from Imperator Rome for your video
The answer to both questions is: Yes.
And since we are now discussing the absolute moral decline of Rome through the centuries, we can take 2 examples and compare them.
-The first one is the Itallic Peninsula during the times of the Punic Wars: which were composed by the scarce dominions directly dominated by the city of Rome(which by that time wasn't even one of the biggest cities of the Mediterranean) plus its inmense web of alliances still far from being consolidated.
That Republic was, in one word, formidable. A martial juggernaut fixated on the Mos Maiorum with an endurance and adapting capability beyond belief. That landlocked State without any fleet worth mentioning fought a naval war vs the most powerful naval force of the world by that time and won. They built their fleet from scratch, suffered numerous setbacks that would have destroyed any other State's will to fight and still managed to come out stronger at the end.
That Republic had its worst enemy plundering and destroying their armies right into the heart of their main land for a decade and still had the guts to send armies out to Hispania and Africa to win the big picture.
We could perfectly say that they survived and prevailed by guts alone.
-The other example is the Itallic Peninsula 5 centuries later, during the III Century: which was several times more populated and "prosperous". And also was... pathetic. A gigantic nest of corruption and depravity that had long forgotten what was to have an enemy at their doors and had become too comfortable in their own well-being. It was a fat pig prepared to be slaughtered by the first army that managed to get past Aquileia and Mediolanum and had to rely on armies recruited at the outher provinces, especially Illiria, the province that literally allowed the Roman Empire to keep existing for 2 more centuries thanks to the manpower and commanders it produced. It's not casuality that it was placed right behind the Danube, where most of the action ocurred.
And the city of Rome itself isn't even worth mentioning. Even the Emperors tried to evade that inmense economic shithole dominated by corrupt praetorians and vestigial senators as much as possible. No wonder they ended up moving the capitals and custom centers far away from there.
Do you know if Rome completely stop recruiting soldiers from the italic Peninisula in the third century? If so, what did the common Roman do who used to earn a living from the army?
Thank you for bringing such a beautiful topic
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.
You forgot to drop this 🎤💯
@@christianjocson5509 yes. America is at weak men create hard times.
Spot on
Mos Maiorum. I think this topic deserves a series of its own. Changes in values and virtue come hand in hand with the changes of empire and men. I hope this extend to all time period and cultures. :)
really like you’re videos but could you make a video on Simon bolivar and what he did
Including the side tale of ‘sir’ Gregor MacGregor
Awesome video. You guys nailed a potentially dull topic thanks :)
The Republic fell because Titus Pullo had a drunken brawl with a gambler.
The video I needed today. Not answers but thoughtful questions.
Adrian Goldsworthy emphasises that it was the military that brought down the western Roman Empire. The constant civil wars, assassinations of emperors, devaluation of the currency, high rates of taxation are stated to all be linked to the military attempting to get their own generals into power and disposing of him when they’re no longer useful. Of course the invasions from Germanic tribes and the huns and plagues didn’t help either.
This dominance of the military in the late republic can also be somewhat applied then aswell in how the republic ended.
True, although that same military is what gained Rome that empire in the first place and how it maintained its borders. Screwed either way, I suppose.
In other words, you're talking about ego. In America, you don't have to travel far to see this in action.
Surprised me... My favorite history channel, covered everything from Mayans, Vikings, Romans, Mongols, all the way to the Revolutionary War, WWII, and everything in between... Go Kings and Generals 👍🔥
The Fall of Rome can be summed up simply as "time kills everything."
It is worth noting that the personal and shared moral as a deciding factor part, was very much up and kicking in historical books written as late as a century ago.
Why did Dr. Seuss cause the fall of rome?
Thank you for this excellent accounting, it is greatly appreciated
With exemptions like climate, pandemic, invasion, and or lost geopolitical importance. Then its always the same song! Centralization of power, Systematic corruption, Class disparity, Civil/Political distress, Civil War/Coops/ Revolutions, Division and Disintegration. Nothing new in the life cycle of empires.
True but usually it's the things in your second sentence that makes empires unable to handle the stuff in the first sentence.
USA : Sounds like me lol
@@Juel92 Look at Byzantium and tell me, were they able to handle the plague?
A centralized government when properly used is important for modern society.
@@cristitanase6130 200 million lol that number seems to rise every other year, probably a billion before long.
I love these videos. As good as the battle videos are the political, social and personal history of a place is far more interesting (to me) than military history.
I mean, its obvious morals wasn't the one sole contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Republic. Economic problems, social changes and such had a lot more to do than ancient historians assumed. But at the same time, let's not dismiss the theory of the moral decline completly.
Look for example at the migration to the cities during the Industrial Revolution. While life and behaviour certainly wasn't perfect (full of despotic landowners, exagerated traditionalism, exclusion of the seen as different), in the rural communities of 19th century Europe there was a certain sense of togetherness. Neighbours knew all each other in those relatively small communities, and used to cooperate in order to facilitate their farm work, because many times it was too dificult to pull by oneself.
But then, with the movement to the cities, this sense of community was gradually lost in favour of individualism. People living in an apartment rarely know who their neighbours are. And most of the time, city jobs are thought as either "going through the motions", or as a competition with each other.
Because even nowadays, I think there are a lot of legit arguments to be made about the egocentrism of capitalist society on our day to day lifes.
Personally, I feel as though the main contributing factor to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was a lack of clear understanding of the history of Rome. They didn't have the necessary tools and information to truly look back and see what it was that was causing issues within the empire, thankfully they could remedy this by subscribing to Magellan tv and K&G is doing their part by providing a helpful link too.
Hopefully they learn their lesson, thank you K&G!
"It was the conquest of Syria which first corrupted us..."
(nervous american laughs on the background)
For America it was the conquest and abuse of itself that did it, and that happened a couple hundred years ago. Now we see the braindead dregs clearly destroying and betraying every concept of statehood.
Americans are not trying to conquer Syria... you mean Russians.
@@redmonkeyass26 Russia? Conquer Syria? Their ally? Yeah, tjat's likely
@@bernardosales1044 Conquer, keep them under their sphere....
@@redmonkeyass26I assume you mean the virtuous American state only intends to spread "freedom" in Syria and then leave them alone, like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It absolutely nothing to do with oil or spreading their sphere of influence unlike the Russians.
You make one of the Best Documentaries. Keep it Up 👍🏼
After the brutal murder of the Gracchi brothers, there is honestly no future for the republic. As the hope of peaceful and orderly reform has died with them.
Let's hope for better from our own Gracchii, the Roosevelts.
@@MattieK09 Absolutely agreed. They got what they had coming to them. They're rabble rousers. Poor Scipio Africanus should've just threw those grand kids in the Tiber.
In Italy we are deeply rooted to these kind of values, even if it doesn't seem by the stereotypes that characterize us. "Non ci metterei la mano sul fuoco" (i wouldn't put my hand on the fire) is a popular saying straight from the example you showed of Muzio Scevola